This idea suggestion is to rename the "Notes" tab in the TADC request form to be more descriptive of its function. My suggestion is to rename it to be "Footnotes", or "Bibliographies".

The Notes tab is confusing to our users. Some think it is a section for written notes and comments, while others think it can be used as a page range field when requesting chapters. It's actual purpose is for specifying the page ranges of footnotes and bibliographic pages to be digitised. As the Notes tab can't be disabled per institution the next best option is give it a more fitting name.

This idea suggestion is to rename the "Notes" tab in the TADC request form to be more descriptive of its function. My suggestion is to rename it to be "Footnotes", or "Bibliographies".

The Notes tab is confusing to our users. Some think it is a section for written notes and comments, while others think it can be used as a page range field when requesting chapters. It's actual purpose is for specifying the page ranges of footnotes and bibliographic pages to be digitised. As the Notes tab can't be disabled per institution the next best option is give it a…

With the changes made to the request form in 2017 we have removed the notes tab:

“We have also listened to feedback regarding page numbers on the “Notes” tab and also for Chapter requests. Previously, additional note pages and bibliographical reference pages were on a separate tab. Often requestors were entering the page numbers of the main digitisation section into this area of the form, not the additional notes and references. In the new request form this information can be entered in the “Reference range” area. All details are available here: https://support.talis.com/hc/en-us/articles/115005426145-Request-Form-Talis-Aspire-Digitised-Content

We would like to have fuller information in the e-mail notification to help lecturers identify the supplied reading. Currently only the author/title details of the book appear, not the details of the extract.

We find that busy lecturers are apt not to notice library e-mails where information is not clearly presented and we think this development would help in this regard.

We have distance learning courses which start and end outside of the 'normal' academic year. We also currently split our requests between semesters 1 & 2.
We need to be able to set flexible rollover dates so that we are not asking academics in June/July whether they still need documents for a module which starts in Jan/Feb/March.

Institutions which are new to TADC and have not uploaded the previous year's requests/CLA report need TADC to be able to distinguish between new and rolled over requests for reporting to the CLA, especially as the CLA have changed the reporting rules and institutions are now only supposed to report new copies for some years.

We take scans down for a variety of reasons (eBook/eJournal purchased, superceded edition/excluded from licence). We usually receive e-mails from academics 6 months after a scan removal asking why the link doesn't work (although we would have notified them at the time). So, we need to be able to access withdrawn requests and the notes associated with it. At the moment TADC indicates once a request is withdrawn it will no longer be visable.

At the moment when you download a pdf from a list it is completely locked down. We would like the ability to add comments or annotations to the pdf once it has been downloaded. We don't want to change it so you can edit the pdf. Just add comments. TADC reduces the ability to have to print out lots of readings but it doesn't allow the students to write notes on the pdfs the way you would be able to from a paper copy. We believe this would save a lot of unnecessary printing.

When editing a Digitisation Request, I mis-typed an ISBN and got an error message "There were missing or invalid fields in your request” – but no indication as to which fields are missing or invalid.
Would be useful if the problem fields could be highlighted in some way.

The functionality to remove a resource which has been added in error to a pre-clearance rollover queue, so that it can be addressed at this point, rather than trying to amend the problem retrospectively. As we have quite a number of modules which have multiple time periods that fall outside the standard semester dates, this would be helpful to enable us in ensuring that resources which may need a new time period are not accidentally processed to the wrong time period.

When a digitisation is requested it would be great if the requestor could attach a PDF of the item if they have it. This would save time in sourcing items on ILL or scanning from the collection. The request would still need to go through the approval process to ensure quality and copyright compliance but could be uploaded once approved.

At present, pdf downloads offer an alpha-numeric system generated name for the saved file.

A different naming convention - including, perhaps, a-bit-of-the-title, module code, time period (and then some unique system identifiers) - would be much more preferable. Human readable naming strings are much more useable for students downloading and saving .pdfs for future reference.

We would like the ability to customise the messages that academics see (either displayed on screen on via email) so that we can make them more like our Uni parlance. It would also be good if we could incorporate links to further information so that the academic could access specific help at point of need.

We would really like to see some kind of workflow tracking (possibly something similar to ‘stages’ in Aspire?) the ‘Copy Pending’ stage can hide a multitude of sins, such a book requested from another site; book requested from BL; Book on order; copy awaiting scan; copy awaiting cleanup; pending reply; etc etc. In many ways, keeping track of where we are at this stage is our largest body of work.

Although I know that it is possible to view usage statistics of digitisations individually, it would be very helpful to be able to generate reports of this sort of information for all live digitisations. I am particularly interested in readings that don't appear to be accessed at all - I do know that there are some but don't have time to look at them all individually. Although this may not necessarily be a reason not to make a reading available the following year (if the lecturer feels that it should be available), it does mean that there would be the option of considering this.

Although I know that it is possible to view usage statistics of digitisations individually, it would be very helpful to be able to generate reports of this sort of information for all live digitisations. I am particularly interested in readings that don't appear to be accessed at all - I do know that there are some but don't have time to look at them all individually. Although this may not necessarily be a reason not to make a reading available the following year (if the lecturer feels that it should be available), it does mean that there would be the…

We have quite a few instances where academics request that the content from one reading list be copied into another. This results in the digitised content being pulled through onto the second list - but with no record on TADC (so it would not be included on the the CLA report) and the coversheet has the details from the first module. Could the reference be copied over without the digitised document going with it? Or could it pull the digitised content with it, but update TADC and add an appropriate coversheet at the same time?